Reading through the work of students seeking to understand how marketing works, I’ll find that their approach will depend on what they think they have to learn.
Building on the content proposed their ambition is mostly to learn the method. They’ll learn empathy, how to tell their story, how to put their service at the core of their marketing, and much more.
What they’ll rarely question is their own philosophy and how it links with the goal they perceive marketing has. It’s hard, to be honest with oneself here as the starting point often is a basic assumption, almost a bias. It basically is out of awareness.
Think about it, what do you use persuasion for?
Is it there to win, that is to help the other have the better alternative, the one you feel is the best for him?
Is it there to win, that is to find how someone can be a partner to the alternative you’ve developed, and help that person find his way into it?
That’s two very different views on what winning means.
Let’s take a second look. Is the personal recognition you get out of persuading someone that is more important? Or is it the trust you’re allowing to emerge with your persuasion skills?
In the example I was reading, one of the students was focused on showing his competency and openness, whereas the other was focusing on learning from the prospect to understand how they would match. The first student relies on the ability of the other to say no. The second student relies on his ability to choose when to say no.
Both assumed that a yes leads to engagement.
It’s not that one of the approaches is the better one. The point is, that it’s worth knowing which one is your preferred one and how it impacts what you are doing.